The clarion. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1883-1888, 1887-04-06

devise anything for her own advantage
to be given in evidence. In the King v.
Foster, the witness had seen 3 cab drive |
by at very rapid rate, but did not see
the accident, but Immediately after /
heard the deceased groan and went to |
where he was lying" 1t was then pro-
posed to show what the deceased then |
said as 10 the cause of his injury, and |
objection was made by the defendant, |
but the objection was oyerrnled, the
judges ruling that what he said at the
instant, though after the injury was
competent. These two cases, as was
pointed out by Mr.. Justice Clifford, in
his dissenting opinion in Insurance
Company Y. Mosely, 5 Wallace, 419,
have been criticised by Mr.. Roscoe as
! difficult To reconcile with established
| principles" In Insurance Company V.
Mosely, supra staten ents of the deceased
made several minutes after an injury
which it was alleged had resulted in
death as to how be was injured were ad
mitted by dived court. In Common
wealth v. FL. Pike, 8 Gushing, Isl, the
statement of the injured party, made
some time after the injury, exactly how
long is not shown, was received. So
also in People V. Vernon, So Cal, 40
and Mitchum V. the State, IL Ga, sic.
On the other hand, in Bedington's case,
IA Cox Cr., Cas-. 81, the injured party
was seen coming out of room
with her throat cut, and speak
ing to the first person she met,
said, See what Bedington has done"
1t was proposed to give this statement
in evidence against the defendant, but
Cockburn, Oh, j., rejected it, holding
that 1t was not part of anything then
being done, but was mere statement of
J a past transaction: Commonwealth V.
Pike, 8 Cushing, has peen practically
overruled by the subsequent cases of
Lund v. Tyngsboro, 9 Cushing, Sc, Cha
pin, so also People v. Vernon, 80 Cal,
has been overruled in the latter case OF
r People V. A H. Lee, 90 CAL, So.
2 The question of the admissibility OF
: such statements was deliberately and
D ably discussed by Fletcher, j., in the
case of Lynd V. Tynsborough, and by
] Clifford, j., in his dissenting opinion in
r Insurance Company V. Mosely, S Wal
a lace. We concur in the views there 81
clearly enunciated against the compe
!. tency of mere proof which are in har
: mony with decisions in our own State
| " NldLC, % -hics-t IoOs IA a =
v. State, 81 Miss, 151. 1t is not enough
r that the statement will throw light upoI
3 the transaction under investigation, no
v that it was made so soon after the oc
: currence as TO exclude the presumption
4 that it has been fabricated, nor that /
a was made under such circumstances a
. to compel the conviction of its truth
/ The true inquiry, according to all tn
l hnritiac Il hot or Tho doalaratl
q is verbal act, illustrating, explainin!
n or interpreting other parts of the trans
4 action of which it is itself a part, or Il
Ie merely history or part of hlstor
II of a completed past affair. In the on
d case it is competent, in the other it
J. not. We are not to be understood as al
10 teptiny olay down any rule for the de
+ cision of what, under ali circumstances
10 is the limit of the existence of the prlr
4 cipal fact which may be explained b
0 contemporaAeous declarations. In som
n cases the res gestae may extend owe
er weeks or months, in others they are lin
o. tied to hours, or to minutes, or to SCI
n onds of time. Each case must be q
j. termined by its own particular circun
is stances. Mr. Wharton very well e.
IN presses the law on this subject
r. CONTRASTING SuQQcu OOtNCC
strangers with the social feud whic
an gave rise to the Gordon riots in FL
IS gland. He says, Nor are there an
to limits of time within which the re
nv gestae can be arbitrarily confined. The
to vary, in fact, with each particular cas-,
a If in one of our streets there is an une,
m pected collision between two men, Ell
he tire strangers to each other, then the RI
20 gestae of the collision are confined
al within the few moments that it occl
Id pies. But when there is social feu'
il. in which two religious factions, as
q the case of the Lord George Gordo
in disturbances, or of the Philadelph
it riots of 1S45, are arrayed against eaC
he other for weeks, and are so absorbed
az the collision as TO be conscious of lit
I'll else, then all that such parties do or ss
lis is as much part of the res gestae as tt
of blows given in the homicides for whio
IS particular prosecutions may be brough
at wharton on cr., ev., sect. 262."
81 We think, on the facts of this parti
an ular case, the statements of the injurr
or party were not of the res gestae; thu
ly they found no support or credence
nd reason of anything then being don
% but owe their whole force to the cred
of the declarant, and therefore shou
have been excluded by the court. f,
the error in permitting the statemen
to be given in evidence, the judgmel
must be reversed, and a new tri
awarded.